Exactly one year ago, Bruce Boudreau was fired as head coach. How have we (the fans) moved on from that saga?

[Miss Korea]

With a full year having passed, it's not a bad time to reflect on the chaotic season that was the 2022-23 Vancouver Canucks.  With Bruce Boudreau having been brought in before the new management regime, the relationship was destined to fail.  And when the Canucks began the season with a brutal 7-game losing streak, it became clear to both management and fans that he was the wrong coach for this team.  But surprisingly... he held onto the job for another 3 months, with little improvement and several public criticisms from Jim Rutherford.

 

During that December-January swing, the Canucks were truly the talk of the league.  It became abundantly clear what was happening - Boudreau knew he was getting fired, but had to continue on anyway as a lame duck.  Everyone in the hockey community had something to say about what was happening.  Everything else (ie. the Bruins historic season or McDavid's insane production) took a backseat to what was going on in Vancouver.

 

At the time, all the fans took sides.  Some supported Boudreau.  Others supported management.  Some believed the media fairly criticized the organization, while others believed they were unfair and not giving the new coach (Tocchet) a fair start.  It was a very emotional time for everyone - Boudreau, the players, and the fans.  Our captain would get traded just seven days later.  From there, things began to settle down with the new coach - the nightmare season ended quickly and mercifully.

 

And I'll leave it there.  Obviously a lot has changed, and so have our thoughts about what went down a year ago.  Some people probably haven't thought about it all since - understandable, given the way our year has gone.  So discuss: Who did you blame back then, and has anything changed your opinion over the past year?

 

[cripplereh]

We are first so think we all moved on.

[CaptainCanuck12]

[Toni Zamboni]

i barely remember him tbh

[iinatcc]

8 minutes ago, Toni Zamboni said:

i barely remember him tbh

 

You don't remember "Bruce there it is"? Or when people were saying before the start of the previous season that the Canucks would be Top 3 in the division because of Boudreau's coaching? 

[Mike Vanderhoek]

Moved on, coach was not good enough and refused to implement structure when it was outlined by management as a reason the players were not playing to their potential on multiple occasions. Coach was removed after the targeted replacement completed his obligations elsewhere.

 

All the shitstorm of conjecture and hurt feelings was media driven and the club owed nobody an explanation ( even though they apologized through the press for the optics of it and the position the media put Boudreau in ) of how they operated their business and operated on their own timeline. 

 

One year later I could not be happier.

[Jeremy Hronek]

1 hour ago, Miss Korea said:

With a full year having passed, it's not a bad time to reflect on the chaotic season that was the 2022-23 Vancouver Canucks.  With Bruce Boudreau having been brought in before the new management regime, the relationship was destined to fail.  And when the Canucks began the season with a brutal 7-game losing streak, it became clear to both management and fans that he was the wrong coach for this team.  But surprisingly... he held onto the job for another 3 months, with little improvement and several public criticisms from Jim Rutherford.

 

During that December-January swing, the Canucks were truly the talk of the league.  It became abundantly clear what was happening - Boudreau knew he was getting fired, but had to continue on anyway as a lame duck.  Everyone in the hockey community had something to say about what was happening.  Everything else (ie. the Bruins historic season or McDavid's insane production) took a backseat to what was going on in Vancouver.

 

At the time, all the fans took sides.  Some supported Boudreau.  Others supported management.  Some believed the media fairly criticized the organization, while others believed they were unfair and not giving the new coach (Tocchet) a fair start.  It was a very emotional time for everyone - Boudreau, the players, and the fans.  Our captain would get traded just seven days later.  From there, things began to settle down with the new coach - the nightmare season ended quickly and mercifully.

 

And I'll leave it there.  Obviously a lot has changed, and so have our thoughts about what went down a year ago.  Some people probably haven't thought about it all since - understandable, given the way our year has gone.  So discuss: Who did you blame back then, and has anything changed your opinion over the past year?

 

 Aquilllini was the only man at fault.  The President and GM should have been hired first, and then they should selected their own coach.  Aqua put both Rutherford and Alvin in a very difficult spot.

[Miss Korea]

34 minutes ago, Mike Vanderhoek said:

Moved on, coach was not good enough and refused to implement structure when it was outlined by management as a reason the players were not playing to their potential on multiple occasions. Coach was removed after the targeted replacement completed his obligations elsewhere.

 

All the shitstorm of conjecture and hurt feelings was media driven and the club owed nobody an explanation ( even though they apologized through the press for the optics of it and the position the media put Boudreau in ) of how they operated their business and operated on their own timeline. 

 

One year later I could not be happier.

 

Hey Mike.

 

So there are quite a few things from your post that need to be cleared up.

 

1. Nobody wanted Boudreau to stay.  Everyone knew he was the wrong man for the job and had to go.  He was hastily parachuted in before the new management regime.  The fact that his successor has done well has vindicated no one because no one was debating it in the first place.

 

2. The initial saga was NOT media-driven.  It was completely initiated by Jim Rutherford.  He was extremely public in his criticisms of Boudreau, and it played out in multiple phone calls with Sportsnet 650.  That talk intensified over the months and it grew and grew until national media couldn't ignore what was happening.  It would be like trying to claim that Kuzmenko's struggles this year are purely media-driven.

 

“When we talk to the coaches, we stress that the style that the team played that had success in the second half of last season was a loose style and it was more on the offensive side... Our goaltender played great in the second half and really helped win a lot of those games or bail us out in wide-open games.  I don’t believe that style of play you can sustain over a long period of time if you want to contend for a playoff spot.”

 

3. Rutherford had already confirmed rumours he was interviewing replacements 10 days before the firing.  There was no need to confirm the initial media leak, but once he did, it made zero sense to keep putting Bruce out there just to lose more games.  Mike Yeo (who is still behind our bench) could've easily deputized for a few games while the search was finalized.  Instead, this whole thing devolved into a national sideshow.  It was completely self-inflicted.

 

I noticed the exact wording you used closely resembles Rutherford's excuse following his "apology".  He got defensive and was attempting to justify his actions.  But when you have publicly humiliated him multiple times and it's become apparent you don't want him as your coach anymore, you cannot embarrass the man for weeks on end and parade him as a lame duck.  It became an unnecessary distraction for the players and led to more losses.  Despite Tocchet's strong record to finish the year, the season was long gone.  It was far too late of a firing, with the losses piling higher and higher.

 

I will always respect Brian Burke for trying to handle this firing with as much grace and compassion as possible:

 

 

Rutherford talked about being "brutally honest his whole career."  My response to that (and anyone who thinks that's the right way to do things is "Honesty without compassion is cruelty."

[Miss Korea]

2 minutes ago, Jeremy Hronek said:

 Aquilllini was the only man at fault.  The President and GM should have been hired first, and then they should selected their own coach.  Aqua put both Rutherford and Alvin in a very difficult spot.

 

It is possible that Aquilini may have blocked the firing of Boudreau until things got completely out of hand.  But we will likely never know.

 

What we do know is that Rutherford went on record several times over several months to criticize the coaching.  Jim went to the media.  Jim confirmed the rumours.  This is hockey.  It really shouldn't be that hard for a hockey professional of 50+ years to exercise discretion and just deflect questions.  

[Elias Pettersson]

52 minutes ago, Miss Korea said:

 

It is possible that Aquilini may have blocked the firing of Boudreau until things got completely out of hand.  But we will likely never know.

 

What we do know is that Rutherford went on record several times over several months to criticize the coaching.  Jim went to the media.  Jim confirmed the rumours.  This is hockey.  It really shouldn't be that hard for a hockey professional of 50+ years to exercise discretion and just deflect questions.  

 

Jim didn't go to the media, the  media went to him.  Jim didn't hire Boudreau, Aquilini did.  Jim didn't create the Boudreau problem, ownership did.  

 

Jim was hired to win a Stanley Cup.  In order to win a Stanley Cup, you have to be cutthroat and ruthless, especially when you are handed a lottery team like Jim was given.  

 

Boudreau also went to the media and wanted to tell his story over and over again.  He isn't without fault either.  He could have easily just resigned and walked away, but he didn't do that because he would have lost the remaining balance of his paycheques for the balance of the season.  So he stayed in that situation collecting cheques knowing he was a lame duck coach.

 

At the end of the day, the situation could have been handled better, but your premise that it was all "Jim's" fault couldn't be further from the truth...

[Toni Zamboni]

4 hours ago, iinatcc said:

 

You don't remember "Bruce there it is"? Or when people were saying before the start of the previous season that the Canucks would be Top 3 in the division because of Boudreau's coaching? 

so many coaches the last decade, its all a blurr
AV, i do remember and quite enjoyed
 

Edited January 21 by Toni Zamboni

[tas]

"winning cures a lot."

Edited January 21 by tas

[tas]

I also never felt there was anything to forgive, as all controversy was entirely media created and driven. 

[elvis15]

The Canucks didn't handle it well, but it was a change that needed to happen. Boudreau was a transitional coach, meant to work with the players and give them confidence in their abilities. If he could have implemented systems as well, he could have lasted longer, but there were issues being individual performances.

[Bob Long]

There was just so much joy at being free from Greens era and seeing a glimpse of what this core could be, it was always going to end poorly with Bruce. 

 

Reality is he coached badly in year 2. He couldn't assemble a good staff. He chose to come back for an option year he should have walked away from.

[Miss Korea]

4 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

Jim didn't go to the media, the  media went to him.  Jim didn't hire Boudreau, Aquilini did.  Jim didn't create the Boudreau problem, ownership did.  

 

Jim was hired to win a Stanley Cup.  In order to win a Stanley Cup, you have to be cutthroat and ruthless, especially when you are handed a lottery team like Jim was given.  

 

Boudreau also went to the media and wanted to tell his story over and over again.  He isn't without fault either.  He could have easily just resigned and walked away, but he didn't do that because he would have lost the remaining balance of his paycheques for the balance of the season.  So he stayed in that situation collecting cheques knowing he was a lame duck coach.

 

At the end of the day, the situation could have been handled better, but your premise that it was all "Jim's" fault couldn't be further from the truth...

 

I fundamentally disagree with everything you've said.  When Rutherford went on 650 to talk about the team, nobody expected him to talk shit about Bruce.  And he did just that.  Media was just there to ask questions as they always do.  It's a radio talk show.  What they got was a Rutherford-driven frenzy.  Look back at those interviews - for real.  Do you know how easy it is for a hockey man to deflect questions about coaching?  Did you notice how out of everyone in the league, everyone on our team, Rutherford was the only person to criticize his coach?  Can you honestly think of an instance where the 

 

It made zero sense for a president of hockey operations to complain about a subordinate when he always had the power to fire him (unless you think Aquilini was actively preventing this).  Suggesting Bruce should've resigned at that point is practically legal grounds for constructive dismissal.  Rutherford went ON RECORD multiple times criticizing his coaching style in a way that we've literally never seen in the NHL.  He must've created such a hostile work situation for Bruce.  "Hey if you don't like me, just get rid of me and stop complaining about me!"

 

Imagine if Edmonton waited until this January before firing Jay Woodcroft.  That's essentially what happened to us.  Even a caretaker coach would've spared us the unnecessary drama.  Look at Ottawa.  At least nobody's talking about their coaching situation anymore.

 

If you someone's doing a poor job, you cut them loose ASAP.  That's ruthless.  Keeping someone you've lost confidence in for months on end is the exact opposite of being ruthless and cutthroat.  If Quinn Hughes comes out today and starts openly criticizing Kuzmenko for his poor play, does that make him ruthless or cutthroat?  Sure, but does that make him a winner!?  Of course not.  It just makes him an asshole.

[Miss Korea]

37 minutes ago, elvis15 said:

The Canucks didn't handle it well, but it was a change that needed to happen. Boudreau was a transitional coach, meant to work with the players and give them confidence in their abilities. If he could have implemented systems as well, he could have lasted longer, but there were issues being individual performances.

 

1 minute ago, Bob Long said:

There was just so much joy at being free from Greens era and seeing a glimpse of what this core could be, it was always going to end poorly with Bruce. 

 

Reality is he coached badly in year 2. He couldn't assemble a good staff. He chose to come back for an option year he should have walked away from.

 

Again, you guys are justifying his firing.  There isn't a single fan or media member at the time who thought otherwise.  By late 2022, nobody on the planet thought Bruce was the right man for the job.  They just didn't understand why it was taking so long to can him.

 

Like, did you ever actually see anyone suggest Bruce should STAY on as coach?

[Bob Long]

2 minutes ago, Miss Korea said:

 

 

Again, you guys are justifying his firing.  There isn't a single fan or media member at the time who thought otherwise.  By late 2022, nobody on the planet thought Bruce was the right man for the job.  They just didn't understand why it was taking so long to can him.

 

Like, did you ever actually see anyone suggest Bruce should STAY on as coach?

 

They were waiting for Tocc to become available. Bruce was still getting paid. Not sure what the confusion is. Because Bruce got emotional? Give me a few million, I'll get emotional too.

[Miss Korea]

Just now, Bob Long said:

 

They were waiting for Tocc to become available. Bruce was still getting paid. Not sure what the confusion is. Because Bruce got emotional? Give me a few million, I'll get emotional too.

 

If there is guy in your workplace who needs to be fired, you best thing to do is fire him first.  There are tons of guys who can fill in and cover for him (ie. Mike Yeo) until you find a replacement.

 

The worst thing to do is to publicly complain about him over and over again while watching the situation get worse.

[Bob Long]

Just now, Miss Korea said:

 

If there is guy in your workplace who needs to be fired, you best thing to do is fire him first.  There are tons of guys who can fill in and cover for him (ie. Mike Yeo) until you find a replacement.

 

The worst thing to do is to publicly complain about him over and over again while watching the situation get worse.

 

Bruce is a professional. In a tough industry. Paid incredibly well. I suspect the angst over Bruce increases as the age of the fan decreases.

[Miss Korea]

1 minute ago, Bob Long said:

 

Bruce is a professional. In a tough industry. Paid incredibly well. I suspect the angst over Bruce increases as the age of the fan decreases.

 

That's not a response to what I'm saying.  Look at Ottawa.  They brought in an old grandpa to babysit the team while they look for a suitable replacement.  Are you suggesting this was the WRONG thing to do?  That they should've just kept DJ Smith in charge for another few months?

[Gurn]

Looks at roster Bruce had---- looks at roster Tochcet has------ I can see the difference.

looks at the coaches Tochet has----- looks at the coaches that were hired for Bruce------ I can see the difference.

 

Said it recently, in the JR is back thread.

 

JR would be so much better  just by keeping his mouth shut- which he said he was going to do---- yet here he goes again.

[tas]

4 minutes ago, Gurn said:

Looks at roster Bruce had---- looks at roster Tochcet has------ I can see the difference.

looks at the coaches Tochet has----- looks at the coaches that were hired for Bruce------ I can see the difference.

 

Said it recently, in the JR is back thread.

 

JR would be so much better  just by keeping his mouth shut- which he said he was going to do---- yet here he goes again.

I wish we were grown up enough that he didn't feel like he had to zip it, but he knows we can't handle honesty without having tantrums. 

[Bob Long]

10 minutes ago, Miss Korea said:

 

That's not a response to what I'm saying.  Look at Ottawa.  They brought in an old grandpa to babysit the team while they look for a suitable replacement.  Are you suggesting this was the WRONG thing to do?  That they should've just kept DJ Smith in charge for another few months?

 

I'm saying it's moot. If you are paid to be a pro, be a pro.

[Gurn]

2 minutes ago, tas said:

I wish we were grown up enough that he didn't feel like he had to zip it, but he knows we can't handle honesty without having tantrums. 

I wish he was smart enough to realize that publicly dissing the coach is not smart.

If the big boss man is bad mouthing the coach- why would players respect the coach?

 

Dead coach walking from the day that J.R. opened his yap.